JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Acting C.J. and Arun Kumar Rai, J.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
At-Libra BPL (JV) – Respondent
Commercial Appeal No.18 of 2023
Decided on 8.8.2024
Contract Act, 1872 – Section 73—Commercial Courts Act 2015—Section 13—Breach of contract—Award of damages—Work schedule is required for progressive payment and target and it is sine qua non for execution of contracted work—BCCL did not provide work schedule for extended period of contract—Original court has meticulously gone through entire material available on record and evidences adduced by both parties, has found that plaintiff has been able to establish its case successfully and proved its claim—Suit has been adjudicated under Commercial Courts Act as Commercial Suit—There is no contractual provision as to what would be rate of interest in contract—Even if pleadings in plaint is not in terms of Rule 2-A(3) of Order VII, however same will not lead to rejection of interest as given in Commercial Suit for commercial transaction—Respondent is entitled for interest for commercial transaction— Original court has meticulously examined each and every evidence as available on record in order to allow various claim in favour of plaintiff—Order impugned requires no interference.(Paras 76, 77, 122, 127,
131, 132 and 133)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Acting C.J.—The instant appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Act is directed against the order/judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed by the District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court No. III, Dhanbad, in Original Suit No. 09 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent with following directions:
“The suit is decreed without cost, both the parties shall bear their own cost. It is declared that the contract awarded to the plaintiff vide work order No. BCCL/IX/GM/PLNG/AT-LIBRA/H-HEMM/NC/WO/12/673, dated 8.2.2012 was terminated midway by the defendants illegally and unjustifiably; and
It is further declared that the notice of proposed action against the plaintiff communicated vide letter bearing ref. no. BCCL/BA-IX/KOCP/64, dated 30.03.2018 signed on 02.04.2018 is void, illegal and invalid.
The defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiffs following amounts :-
(a) A sum of Rs. Rs.4,20,02,320/- as refund of bank guarantee and retention money combined; and
(b) A sum of Rs.1,80,40,014/- as reimbursement of difference in HPC 08th May 2023 Page No.-93 of 94 In the court of District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer Commercial Court No.-III, Dhanbad Original Suit No.-09/2019 CNR No. - JHDH01-002164-2019 (U/s 26 C.P.C. r/w Sec. 6 & 12 Commercial Court Act) payment; and
(c) A sum of Rs.2,63,19,879/- illegally withheld money ; and
(d) A sum Rs. 2,43,07,069/- reimbursement of service tax; and
(e) A sum of Rs. Rs.4,98,45,047/- on account of correct Specific Gravity/Stripping Ratio; and
(f) A sum of Rs.1,93,83,855/- for work done in February 2018 and further sum of Rs. 1,34,23,451/- for work done in March, 2018; and
(g) A sum of Rs.13,41,16,526/- as opportunity cost ; and
(h) A sum of Rs.13,46,06,556.43/- as cost incurred in EMI etc.
(i) Interest on the amount as above on total monetary claim @ 10.5% p.a. pendent lite and further till date of realization of the said amount.”
2. The facts leading to filing the aforesaid original suit being Original Suit No. 09 of 2019 which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The plaintiff (M/s. AT-Libra BPL (JV), respondent herein) has brought the suit being Original Suit No. 09 of 2019 for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of money initially valued at Rs.19,33,71,635 and later by amendment it was enhanced to Rs.46,86,08,851/- u/s 26 of Civil Procedure Code with Sections 6 & 12 of Commercial Court Act 2015.
The plaintiff is a joint venture partnership firm and engaged in the business of mining and coal /Over Burden and transport excavation in various parts of the country.
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) being Tender No. BCCL/ GM (CMC)/F-HEMM-OS/2010/3844 was issued by the defendant no.3 (appellant herein) for hiring of HEMM and for removal of OB, extraction and transportation of coal from IV (TOP), IV (BOT), III (TOP) and III (BOT) seems of Golukdih NC Project (Northern Sector) of GOCP/KOCP of Bastacolla for and estimated cost of Rs. 282 crores.
In pursuance of said NIT the plaintiff/respondent had participated in the tender process and was declared successful bidder. On 07.11.2011, a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) was issued by the defendant no.1 for removal of 267 lakh cum OB, re-handling of 2.00 lakh cum loose OB and for extraction and transportation of 112.85 MT of coal from IV(Top), IV (Bot), III(Top) and III (Bot) seams of Golukdih NC project (Northern sector) of GOCP/KOCP of Bastacolla area with financial involvement of Rs. 252,01,39,290/- (Rs. Two Hundred Fifty-Two Crore One Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ninety) only inclusive of all taxes and levies but exclusive of service tax at the diesel base price of Rs. 39.61 per liter.
Pursuant to such issuance of LOA on 07.11.2011, the plaintiff had duly furnished performance security/security Deposit of Rs.2,10,01,161/- from 28.11.2011 till 29.9.2018 which was a per-condition as mentioned in the LOA and on 08.0
Jaycee Housing Private Limited and Ors v. Registrar (general), Orissa High Court, Cuttack and Ors
Kandla Export Corporation and Anr. v. OCI Corporation and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 715. – Relied.
Dalchand vs., Municipal Corporation, Bhopal & Anr.
Patil Automation (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd.
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others
Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Ors. v Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Ors
Bachhaj Nahar v Nilima Mandal and Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 491. – Referred.
Breach of contract – Award of damages—Work schedule is required for progressive payment and target and it is sine qua non for execution of contracted work.
Maintainability of Suit - Record reveals that defendant’s contention that no notice under Section 80 CPC was given by plaintiffs was also decided in favour of plaintiffs while deciding an application....
The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.
Point of law: When the appeal is presented in terms of Section 96 CPC and when this Court is considering this appeal not only as a last Court of fact but also in terms of law, it is open for the appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual clauses must be reasonable and not unconscionable, and contractors should be paid within a reasonable time as per Section 46 of th....
The judgment established the requirement for reasonable time for payment and the illegality of clauses that postpone consideration indefinitely.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.